On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <[email protected]>wrote:
> > shall we avoid the personal comments? Anyway I may be a blind idiot - but I > cannot find any wording anywhere on the website which says that QT itself > is > released under the GPL. All I can find is that the open source edition is > released for developing GPL'ed software and that the same (open source > edition) may be freely copied and distributed. I do *not* find any wording > stating that the open source edition may be *modified* and distributed. > Sorry if it sounded personal, but it was my natural reaction to your statements which do not seem to represent what QT claims in its licensing terms/conditions, and without the benefit of instant feedback (like, when face-2-face), I had to put in my (personal sounding) "disclaimers" My, and I presume others', understanding about the licensing terms of the Free version of QT is very different from yours - QT is available under GPL v2, v3, and also some exceptions which specify how you can use QT for your own code which you wish to release under other open licenses like BSD, Apache, CDDL, EPL, blah blah. Which makes QT perfectly complying with the FOSS principles as far as I can see. I can, off-list, send across the "licenses" files which are part of the source-code (from the svn checked-out codebase) - if you wish to have a look. What freedom does it suppress, in your opinion? Thanks, jaju -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
